According to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).

Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No, that's not a known relationship within Semitic. In all those other languages,it's simply a borrowing of the Arabic word.

Syriac has a single word, attested once, in a lexicon, from the root ZBR, meaning 'spears'.

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.

zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.

What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

The Qur'an is full of such Arabizations, probably in theoral, non-scholarly manne in which Judaism and Christianitywas transmitted in Pre-Islamic Arabia

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

The first question was whether there is a known text which is the bookZabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is thesame as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be awidespread belief among Muslims either.

Post by Helmut RichterNonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly ChristianArabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic rootas in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is calledtehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for thepurpose.

For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. Onebig area is Osmanic (Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Kurdish, Bosnian, Tartar).But how did the word get into Urdu or Swahili? Especially the latter gotall its Muslim influence from Arabia, especially Yemen, and from Persia,but not from the Osmanic area.

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

The first question was whether there is a known text which is the bookZabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is thesame as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be awidespread belief among Muslims either.

Post by Helmut RichterNonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly ChristianArabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic rootas in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is calledtehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for thepurpose.For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Post by Helmut RichterFor a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?

4:163, 17:55 and 21:105

I cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is thatsomething called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about itscontents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to thePsalms. Right?

Post by Helmut RichterFor a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?

4:163, 17:55 and 21:105

an-Nisa 4:162, al-'isa:' 17:55

وَءَاتَيۡنَا دَاوُ ۥدَ زَبُورً۬ا

wa-'a:tayna: da:wa(:)da za:bu:ran

"We gave David Zabur"

Post by Helmut RichterI cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is thatsomething called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about itscontents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to thePsalms. Right?

Post by Helmut RichterI cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is thatsomething called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about itscontents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to thePsalms. Right?

Typically terse for the Quran.There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.

Post by Helmut RichterFor a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Post by Helmut RichterI cannot read Arabic to check. I understand that the claim is thatsomething called Zabur was revealed to Dawud, but nothing about itscontents is said, in particular not whether there is a connction to thePsalms. Right?

Typically terse for the Quran.There is a concensus of opinion that it is the Psalms.

Post by Arnaud FournetI perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.

The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,but that all their names are not mentioned. They all weresupposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notionsof good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collectevery single belief on Earth with that sense.

Post by DKleineckeWouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament shouldincorporate the Old Testament?Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the samemanuscript?Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

The details would certainly have been different.

The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputationswith the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist andpolytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concernedwith the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versionsare alluded to here and there, but the important point is themoral derived from them. It is not concerned with Arabian storieseither. For example, we are told something very bad happenedto the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to theiridentity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrathof God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew thedetails, but why waste time going over it?

Post by Arnaud FournetI perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.

The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,but that all their names are not mentioned. They all weresupposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notionsof good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collectevery single belief on Earth with that sense.

Post by DKleineckeWouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament shouldincorporate the Old Testament?Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the samemanuscript?Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

The details would certainly have been different.The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputationswith the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist andpolytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concernedwith the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versionsare alluded to here and there, but the important point is themoral derived from them.

I disagree here.It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.And it's not the only case.A.

It is not concerned with Arabian stories

Post by Yusuf B Gurseyeither. For example, we are told something very bad happenedto the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to theiridentity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrathof God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew thedetails, but why waste time going over it?

yes, possibly so.I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.The notion that the Qor'an is autoreferential is an invented lie.A.

Post by Arnaud FournetI perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.

The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,but that all their names are not mentioned. They all weresupposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notionsof good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collectevery single belief on Earth with that sense.

Post by DKleineckeWouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament shouldincorporate the Old Testament?Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the samemanuscript?Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

The details would certainly have been different.The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputationswith the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist andpolytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concernedwith the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versionsare alluded to here and there, but the important point is themoral derived from them.

I disagree here.It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.And it's not the only case.A.It is not concerned with Arabian stories

Post by Yusuf B Gurseyeither. For example, we are told something very bad happenedto the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to theiridentity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrathof God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew thedetails, but why waste time going over it?

yes, possibly so.I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.The notion that the Qor'an is autoreferential is an invented lie.A.

The second surat starts out literally "This is the book - nodoubt in it". I am inclined to read that as "This is thebook [called] 'No doubt in it'". Aside from the fact that"this" has no obvious reference this can easily be read asself-referential.

Post by Arnaud FournetI perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.

The Quran also says that every nation was sent a prophet,but that all their names are not mentioned. They all weresupposed to give the same monotheist message and basic notionsof good evil. So in Arnaud's logic it would have had to collectevery single belief on Earth with that sense.

Post by DKleineckeWouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament shouldincorporate the Old Testament?Or does "incorporate" means just writing together in the samemanuscript?Would matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

The details would certainly have been different.The Quran is basically a series of sermons and disputationswith the folk Christianity, folk Judaism and other monotheist andpolytheist musings of early 7th cent. Arabia. It is not concernedwith the specifics of OT or NT writings. Their popular versionsare alluded to here and there, but the important point is themoral derived from them.

I disagree here.It's quite obvious that some parts of the Qor'an are translations of the Old and New Testaments.For example, the beginning of Surah19 is obviously taken from Luke chapter1.And it's not the only case.A.

What you say does not contradict what I wrote, whichI agree with.

There are snippets of OT, NT (not all of them canonical)and Arabian stories but none from beginning to end.They are interrupted by commentary and scattered throughout.There is very little consistent narrative becausenarrative is not the main point.

Post by Yusuf B Gurseyeither. For example, we are told something very bad happenedto the "People of Elephant" but no clue is given as to theiridentity. The important thing is that they incurred the wrathof God and were punished for it. Muhammad's audience knew thedetails, but why waste time going over it?

yes, possibly so.I tend to think that when the Qor'an talks about the Kitab it does not refer to itself but to the Christian Bible.

kita:b occurs for the Qur'an in later verses, possibly becauseat that time an effort was being made to compile it.

Otherwise kita:b quite obviously means the Old and New Testamentssince "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.A.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly statedthat it is from the Psalms.

Where is it stated? In the Qur'an in the form "this text is quoted fromthe Zabur"? Or elsewhere?

As I wrote, I take it as sufficient to know that it is a generallyaccepted opinion that the Zabur is the book of Psalms or a portionthereof. A generally accepted opinion explains the usage of languageirrespective of whether the opinion can be corroborated.

Now, if there were an explicit statement, this is more than just agenerally accepted opinion.

"Before this We wrote in the Zabur (Psalms), after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth (land)."

This is from Psalm 37:29

The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Remarkbely the Hebrew has yiršū ʼāreṣ "wiil inherit the land /Earth"and the Quran the cognate ʼanna l-ʼarḍa yariϑuhā "that (verily)will inherit the land (Earth)"

So this clinches the identification of "Zabur" with "the Psalms"as well.

====

Post by Helmut RichterAs I wrote, I take it as sufficient to know that it is a generallyaccepted opinion that the Zabur is the book of Psalms or a portionthereof. A generally accepted opinion explains the usage of languageirrespective of whether the opinion can be corroborated.Now, if there were an explicit statement, this is more than just agenerally accepted opinion.--Helmut Richter

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?

I know of no papyrus codices.

the introduction of paper is usually placed withthe early Abbasids, tradition says after theBattle of Talas with the Chinese 751

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.

That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Post by Yusuf B Gurseythe introduction of paper is usually placed withthe early Abbasids, tradition says after theBattle of Talas with the Chinese 751

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?Also Central Arabia is not Yemen.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all

We are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks andshpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing inArabia.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all

Neither was writing. What does "hafiz" mean in the 21st century? (I often wonderwhether the former head of Syria came by the name legitimately.)

Post by Yusuf B GurseyWe are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks andshpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing inArabia.

The former -- not "palm," but cypress, often -- have turned up over the lastseveral decades, bearing all sorts of texts (but not Qur'anic ones), the latter haven't.

Post by Arnaud FournetI perceive that kind of situation as an internal contradiction.The Qor'an should incorporate what it claims to reaffirm.

Wouldn't it then follow that that the New Testament shouldincorporate the Old Testament? The New Testament does not claimto reaffirm the Old Testament, but describes how the prophecies ofthe Old became true in the New. Or does "incorporate" means justwriting together in the same manuscript?

yes, it's quite odd that the Qor'an hardly includes a single Psalm.

A scholarly just Muslim pointed out one, and it is explicitly statedthat it is from the Psalms.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced fromthe East shortly after the revelation of the Qur'an. (See JonathanBloom, Paper Before Print, Yale UP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includespapyrus copies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is apapyrus from AH 22 in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows thatconsonant dotting was already used at that time, but only where it wasneeded for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egyptto Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughoutEurope until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by theArabs. What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to all

Neither was writing. What does "hafiz" mean in the 21st century? (I oftenwonder whether the former head of Syria came by the name legitimately.)

Post by Yusuf B GurseyWe are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks andshpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing inArabia.

The former -- not "palm," but cypress, often -- have turned up over the lastseveral decades, bearing all sorts of texts (but not Qur'anic ones), the latter haven't.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to allWe are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks andshpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing inArabia.

Post by DKleineckeWould matters have been different if there had been an Arabicversion of the Old Testament (like the Septuagint) availableto the early Muslims?

They probably had versions in Aramaic or some other Semitic languages.

But the dissemination was mainly oral, the written versionscoming from the Lrvant and Mesopotamia. You simply couldn'tafford a parchment industry in early 7th cent. Arabia. Youwould run out of animals. Writing on parchment seems to havebeen mainly for short formulaic trade contracts etc.

The main writing ground was still papyrus. Paper was introduced from the East shortlyafter the revelation of the Qur'an. (See Jonathan Bloom, Paper Before Print, YaleUP, ca. 2000).

Was papyrus available in early 7th cent. Arabia?I know of no papyrus codices.

It's not _terribly_ good at surviving millennia.That stash of discarded Qur'an mss. found in a Yemeni geniza includes papyruscopies. The oldest dated Arabic commercial document is a papyrus from AH 22in the Rainer Collection, Vienna -- it shows that consonant dotting was alreadyused at that time, but only where it was needed for disambiguation.

Yes. I know about that. It has the year 22 and the lunar monthas well as the Byzantine year of indiction, the Coptic monthand date. It turns out that they are consistent with our tabulatedvalues, so the documnent is of importance in establishing the calendar.It is however from Egypt, so that it is on papyrus is notsurprising.

Do you imagine that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an mss. were imported from Egypt to Yemen? Papyrus, not parchment, was the main writing surface throughout Europeuntil the introduction of paper by the Arabs.

I'm not saying the manuscripts were imported but how about thewriting material? Was there papyrus growing in Arabia?

Of course papyrus was imported from Egypt. It was the principal surface forordinary writing throughout Europe until the introduction of paper by the Arabs.What does that have to do with where a ms. was written?

I'm saying that since papyrus was imported it wasn't accesible to allWe are told that very crude materials such as palm stalks andshpulder blades of animals were in common use for writing inArabia.

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

The first question was whether there is a known text which is the bookZabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is thesame as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be awidespread belief among Muslims either.

Post by Helmut RichterNonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly ChristianArabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic rootas in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is calledtehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for thepurpose.For a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Where is that claim written in the Qur'an?Besides, most "psalms" are not written by David.A.

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

The first question was whether there is a known text which is the bookZabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is thesame as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be awidespread belief among Muslims either.

Post by Helmut RichterNonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly ChristianArabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic rootas in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is calledtehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for thepurpose.

Presumably via Syriac.

Post by Helmut RichterFor a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'anand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,are there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?The distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. Onebig area is Osmanic (Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Kurdish, Bosnian, Tartar).But how did the word get into Urdu or Swahili? Especially the latter gotall its Muslim influence from Arabia, especially Yemen, and from Persia,but not from the Osmanic area.

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?

The first question was whether there is a known text which is the bookZabur mentioned in the Qur'an. The answer is no. That the Zabur is thesame as the book of Psalms -- in whatever language -- seems not to be awidespread belief among Muslims either.

Post by Helmut RichterNonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.zabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)

That the root ZMR has been used for Psalms in the scholarly ChristianArabic world is immediately understandable: It is the same Semitic rootas in the Hebrew (mizmor=psalm, although the book is calledtehillim=praises). This root is now used in Arabic and Farsi for thepurpose.

also in Turkish. It is used in non-Muslim contexts

Post by Helmut RichterFor a folk etymology that connects ZMR to ZBR there is a need for folkswho believe in a connection between the Zabur as mentioned in the Qur'an

Originally the inhabitants of 7th cent and earlier Arabia.

Records from that area from that time are confined to graffiti.

The Qur'an is the 1st book in Arabic known.

Post by Helmut Richterand the Biblical book of Psalms. Who could they have been? Are Muslimsgenerally aware that Dawud is an author of psalms? Do they know the suramentioning the Zabur and draw the connection? Or, the other way round,

Obviously. Devout Muslims memorize the Qur'an.

Post by Helmut Richterare there Christians in the Muslim world who know that the Qur'anmentions a book revealed to Dawud and equate it with the Psalms?

Certainly. I have heard it used by Turkish Christian friend ofmine social media discussions.

Post by Helmut RichterThe distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One

The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christianwho deliberately ignores the Quran.

Post by Helmut RichterThe distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One

The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christianwho deliberately ignores the Quran.

As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as ahint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMRand not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) havebeen different if a Muslim had written that article?

And given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which hasbecome a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it notplausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also inWPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?

Post by Helmut RichterThe distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One

The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christianwho deliberately ignores the Quran.

As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as ahint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMRand not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) havebeen different if a Muslim had written that article?

Possibly. The problem is that the Qur'an has nothing tosay about it except from being revealed to David. ArabicWikipedia has seperate articles titled "yasu:3" that is"Jesus" in Christian Arabic (but as a name given to children"3i:sa" is used) describing Jesus from a Christian POVand an article "3i:sa~bnu maryam" (3i:sa" b. maryam, Jesusson of Mary) describing Jesus from a Muslim POV but the twoare linked.

There is also an article "zabu:r" in Arabic Wikipedia,but it is not linked to the mazmu:r article, which fairnessdemands it so be. This is the case of Persian Wikipedia.Persian "Farsi" Wikipedia has both (zabu:r and maza:mi:r),but the "zabu:r" article is surprisingly verbose. andthe maza:mi:r article short (perhaps because of fewPersian speaking Christians).

As expected the zabu:r is terse in terms of zabu:r asScripture and then says a few things about zabu:r asthe miniscule variant of the South Arabian Script.

Post by Helmut RichterAnd given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which hasbecome a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it notplausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also inWPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?

Very true, but as I said above, there should have been linkageto the Arabic zabu:r article and at least word or two that itis regarded by Muslisms as a revelead book along with the Torahand the Gospel (always singular in Muslim Arabic).

Post by Helmut RichterThe distribution of languages where ZBR is used for Psalms (I checkedthe names of the corresponding WP articles, as I do not know theselanguages) demands also an explanation, as Arabic is not among them. One

The Arabic Wikipedia article seems to be written by Arab Christianwho deliberately ignores the Quran.

As I wrote, I cannot read Arabic, I only used the headline مزمور as ahint that the translation of "psalms" into Arabic contains the root ZMRand not ZBR. Would that (the headline, not the article as a whole) havebeen different if a Muslim had written that article?

Possibly. The problem is that the Qur'an has nothing tosay about it except from being revealed to David. ArabicWikipedia has seperate articles titled "yasu:3" that is"Jesus" in Christian Arabic (but as a name given to children"3i:sa" is used) describing Jesus from a Christian POVand an article "3i:sa~bnu maryam" (3i:sa" b. maryam, Jesusson of Mary) describing Jesus from a Muslim POV but the twoare linked.There is also an article "zabu:r" in Arabic Wikipedia,but it is not linked to the mazmu:r article, which fairnessdemands it so be. This is the case of Persian Wikipedia.Persian "Farsi" Wikipedia has both (zabu:r and maza:mi:r),

"Persian" covers anything from the inscription of Dariusto the slang of Tehran or Dushanbe. "Farsi" is the ArabizedPersian of the Islamic period and more narrowly the modernstandard of Iran as opposed to the modern standards of Afghanistan(known officially as "Dari") and Tajikistan (now calledoffically called Fårsi-yi Tåjiki "Tajik Persian").

I don't like the term "Farsi" when using English because"Farsi" in the popular American mind has come to beassociated with the speech of sinister bearded guys hatchingnefarious plots and "Persian" with the language of OmarKhayyam!

Post by Yusuf B Gurseybut the "zabu:r" article is surprisingly verbose. andthe maza:mi:r article short (perhaps because of fewPersian speaking Christians).As expected the zabu:r is terse in terms of zabu:r asScripture and then says a few things about zabu:r asthe miniscule variant of the South Arabian Script.

Post by Helmut RichterAnd given that the text of the Psalms is in the Jewish Bible which hasbecome a part of the Christian Bible but is not in the Qur'an: is it notplausible that a Jew or a Christian write on the issue, even in Arabic?As much as I would expect that a Muslim write about the Qur'an also inWPs in languages predominantly spoken by non-Muslims?

Very true, but as I said above, there should have been linkageto the Arabic zabu:r article and at least word or two that itis regarded by Muslisms as a revelead book along with the Torahand the Gospel (always singular in Muslim Arabic).

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

No. But in Pre-Islamic Yemen we see the change for initialSemitic m- > b- on occasion.

An entirely phonetic, (albeit somewhat long-winded explanation)has been proposed to me by Prof. de Blois:

Post by Yusuf B Gurseyzabu:r means "book", something written down, zabara means to writeor transcribe. and fa3u:l measure is to be understood as a formof the passive participle maf3u:l . zibr and zabi:r are alternateforms for this more general meaning. It also usually and morespecifically meant the palm stalks used for wriing, and in AncientSouth Arabia a more minisicule and more cursive variant of theSouth Semitic Script was used for the occasion.zubra(t) means a piece of iron, a piece of bone, zubr a wordfor penis.What we have here is very likely an example of folk etymologyfrom the scholarly Christian Arabic word for the Psalms,al-maza:mi:r sing. mazmu:r (Mezamir, mezmur is also usedin Turkish Bible tranlations, though some may have Zebur)The Qur'an is full of such Arabizations, probably in theoral, non-scholarly manne in which Judaism and Christianitywas transmitted in Pre-Islamic Arabiasome examples: 3imra:n for 3amrAm, sulayma:n (dim. ofsalma:n) for Solomon to name only two, notwithsandingless recognizable forms such as 3i:sa" for yasu:3 (anumber of phonetic steps), yaHya" ("he lives") foryu:Hanna: (through Hebrew diminutive yoHai)

Post by Helmut RichterAccording to easily available sources like WP, "Zabur" is a book thathas been revealed to Dawud=Dawid, according to the Quran. I read thisinformation so that its contents is now unknown, and any relationship tothe biblical book of Psalms or parts thereof is conjectural at most?Nonetheless the usage of the word "Zabur" for a psalm in the biblicalsense seems to be widespread among Christians in languages the speakersof which are mostly Muslims (Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Swahili).Are the roots Z-B-R (ar: Zabur) and Z-M-R (he: mizmor) cognates by aregular shift in consonants?

Zabur for a book, especially a book of psalms, might go back to SAI BIR,life SAI fur BIR, Greek zao 'I live' and byrsa 'hide, fur, leather'.BIR also named a well as fur place where fur and leather bags were filledwith water, consider Hebrew beer 'well'. A book may be regarded as a wellof information, wisdom, and a book of psalms as a well of spiritual life.Greek psallein 'to pluck, pluck a harp, sing a psalm' accounts for Englishpsalm. Young David, by then a shepard, plucked his harp for king Sauland thus "refreshed" him, gave him back the spiritual life Saul had lost.

and name a Son of the Mother (goddess) of Rivers, a Son of Mari, or Sonsand Daughters of Mari, short for a collection of psalms by one or severalscribes from Mari that may have inspired David and other authors of theBible (dvd David, from DA PAD, away from DA activity of feet PAD, deliveredfrom the paw of the Egyptian lion, delivered from the paw of the Hittitebear, delivered from the paw of the Philistine giant Goliath).

Mari, modern Tell Hariri on the western bank of the Euphrates River inSyria, close to the border with Iraq, was a wealthy city state (untildevastated by Hammurabi). An important trading route led from Mari viaTadmor (Palmyra), Damascus and Palestine to the Red Sea. Mari was famous,also for her singers and musicians and scribes, among them women. Singersand musicians from Mari traveled far, even some 350 kilometers to Ebla.One might look for traces of the hypothetical anthology of psalms in thewritten legacy of Mari - 25,000 inscribed clay tablets, probably manystill undocumented.

Cyrus H. Gordon makes a connection between Mari and the Bible. Muralpaintings from the days of Hammurabi (c.1704-1662 BC) show a goddess(also known from seals) in her flauncing dress that is covered withscallops of many colors - "This may be the type of formal robe thatJacob gave his son Joseph: the 'coat of many colours'" (Cyrus H. Gordon,Adventures in the Nearest East, Phoenix London 1957). I haven't seenthe murals (nor a seal in a sufficiently large reproduction) so I can'tsay whether the woman represents a river goddess. But a sculpture does!A 140 cm high statue of a standing woman holding before her womb a vaseout of which flew water, actual water from a hidden source in the base,her robe falling in waves from her waist along her legs where the clothis decorated with vertical wavy lines - that statue was found in theroyal palace and may be the river goddess AMA REO who named Mari ...As for Jacob, he is known for his well, and Joseph interpreted Pharaoh'sriver dreams and thus helped Egypt survive a famine of seven years.

If a lost anthology of psalms by a Son of Mari, or by Sons and Daughtersof Mari inspired David and other authors of the Bible, then the middlepart of David's first psalm, 1:3, could have been quoted from the lostsource: "And he (the godly one) shall be like a tree planted by the riversof water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf shall alsonot wither (Hebrew fade); and whatsoever he doeth will prosper."

Did joung David find himself in those lines he may have heard from atraveler? and hope that his own songs may not fade? Imagine him playinga lyra, maybe accompanying the glittering wavelets of a small riversomewhere in the hills of Gibea ...